10 ms·
Spending by the UK government on the siege against Julian Assange
- yummybear 12y agoJust to play devil's advocate here: How are Sweden supposed to promise not to extradite him to the US? Wouldn't that depend on what kind of possible extradition request would arrive, if any?
- rhblake 12y agoYes. There is nobody in Sweden with the power to make such an advance promise. It's simply impossible, by law. This is generally a good thing.
- alextgordon 12y agoThe real question in all of this is why does Sweden have an extradition treaty with a country infamous the world over for torture of detainees?
- chippy 12y agotreaties work in both directions
- alextgordon 12y agoHardly a justification for cooperating with torturers, more of an excuse.
- somebehemoth 12y agoWill you kindly stop referring to the United States as a whole as "torturers"? Not everyone here agrees with our government's use of torture and there is a continuing debate going on here on its usefulness and the need to prevent further abuses.
- rhblake 12y agoWell, you could ask roughly half of the world's sovereign states the same question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_treaties_countries.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_extradition_...
- alextgordon 12y agoI would be happy to. "Because everybody else is doing it", is not exactly the most convincing of arguments.
- rmc 12y agoThey can't. There are laws in most countries that if country A does the right legal dances for extradition, then legally they must be extradited. What people are asking for is the government/politicians to somehow override the judicial or legal system, and ensure one legal thing doesn't happen.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoThat's rendition which Sweden has recently resisted wrt the US. Extradition is merely treaties and regulation, not strictly law. And it's full of nuances - e.g. exceptions for political crimes which is probably highly relevant in this case. I see no reason why a team of lawyers paid the same amount of cash reference in the article wouldn't be able to sort this out to the mutual satisfaction of the two (three if you include the UK) parties involved.
- andyjohnson0 12y agoI know nothing about Swedish law but, as an EU member and ECHR [1] signatory, Sweden cannot extradite a person to the US (or any other country) if a possible punishment that they could receive would deprive that person of their rights under the convention. In practice, this applies to judicial execution, detention without trial, or detention without the possibility of release. It may be that the US could give undertakings about excluding punishments (such as death) to the Swedish government that would make an extradition possible. As far as I know, though, Assange cannot be tried with treason in the US (which has a possible death penalty) because he is not a US citizen. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Ri...
- rmc 12y agoThe US & EU have signed treaties requiring that the death penalty not be imposed (or carried out) if there's an extradition. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_criminal_matters/jl0053_en.htm http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_secur... Why someone would flee Sweden to go to the UK when they are afraid of US extradition is beyond me. The UK has a much closer relationship with the US.
- elektronjunge 12y agoThat story has never made any sense to me. The U.S. and Britain are far closer allies with a much longer history of extradition. If the U.S. wanted to extradite Assange they would have done it from Britain. Extraditing him to Sweden first only to later extradite him to the U.S. is non-sensical.
- 3454359009 12y agoAll that money just to get one guy tested on HIV.
- gaius 12y agoSend the bill to Ecuador, or slap a duty on imports. Job done.
- GunlogAlm 12y agoAssange is well within his rights to apply for asylum, and Ecuador is well within its rights to accept his application. Assange is inside the embassy legally. It's the UK who are choosing to monitor the embassy with police officers (rightly so IMO, mind), not Ecuador.
- unfamiliar 12y agoWhenever big numbers are thrown around, there is a need to put them in perspective. However, I don't think "number of meals" or "teachers hired" are good or relevant perspectives. The UK police budget is about £3.5 billion. So this expense is about 0.3% of that. The UK budget is about £700 trillion, if I remember correctly. So this expense is about 0.0000014% of that.
- arethuza 12y ago£700 billion - not £700 trillion!
- psykovsky 12y agoAmerican billions or European billions?
- ObviousScience 12y agoTo put your numbers in perspective: the cost of Julian Assange being kept in the embassy is not policing all of the UK for a day or so. That is, the cost of keeping Assange under watch is the same as what would be spent on 1 average day of policing for the entire country. If I were a UK citizen concerned about local crime rates, I'd be mildly ticked off they were spending 1 nationwide police day on some guy rather than dealing with crimes over the entire rest of the country.
- dublinclontarf 12y agoWhat are they supposed to do? Just not enforce the law?
- draugadrotten 12y agoThey should bring the Swedish Prosecutors to the Embassy and conduct the interview there, as is done in other cases. This case is not about enforcing the law, it appears to be about using the letter of the law to intimidate one of USAs most wanted individuals and keeping him detained without a fair trial. Like using tax laws against Capone. Doing a s/Gitmo/Embassy/.
- jamespo 12y agoGood to see the linked John Pilger piece repeats the disingenuous "not charged" claim
- alex_hitchins 12y agoI was going to say this too. I did in a previous thread and got some down-votes.
- sago 12y agoI agree "not charged" makes it sound less serious than it is (he hasn't been charged, but a warrant for his arrest on those charges has been issued). Interestingly, though, if he sits it out for another 5 years, for another £10m or so in UK police spending, the Swedish statute of limitations (which is dependent on charging, not arrest warrants) will expire, and he can't be charged. As I understand it, anyway.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago"5 years, for another £30m" Why is the cost suddenly going to treble?
- sago 12y agoBecause my math sucks. Sorry. Edited.
- sago 12y agoEdit: Reading another source suggests they can charge him in absentia, so the statute of limitations argument is probably moot.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- SilkRoadie 12y agoWouldn't it set an unwanted precedence if the British Government just let this go? There is an arrest warrant against Assange and the British Government has a duty to carry it out. If they do not carry it out then theoretically anyone on the run could seek asylum in a foreign embassy knowing that if successful it was just a matter of time before they could make their escape. I also wonder what would happen when the UK wanted to extradite a person from a foreign country after letting Assange walk. Would their position be weakened? It is a bad situation but it seems like Assange would rather wither and rot stuck in an embassy rather than deal with the charges against him. The reason he will not come out is because he is locked in a prison of his own paranoia. It is certainly money wasted but it seems that due to the chain of events it is money which has to be wasted.
- sago 12y agoAny policing priorities set a precendent of expectation. For example, because of the way car and property crime are (not) investigated, a petty car criminal can reasonably expect to get away with their crime. There are plenty of other crimes where a police authority would choose not to take dramatic action and save a £10m cost of policing. The suggestion isn't Assange be allowed to walk. If he were able to be affordably apprehended, then that is reasonable. The problem is that this spending is on policing theatre, aimed at making clear (primarily to the US) that the UK takes Assange seriously as a threat to security. This kind of performance wouldn't be put on, at this expense, if a random alleged-rapist took shelter in an embassy. The police would leave them to it, and act when they had intelligence that they'd slipped out.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoWhat evidence do you have that car and property crime aren't investigated, and in which country are you talking about?
- sago 12y agoSorry that phrasing was overly terse. In many regions of the UK the police won't come out to petty car or property crime, let alone conduct an investigation. They will issue a crime number by telephone. If the stolen goods are identifiable and turn up in some way, you may get some progress. Or similarly if the pattern of crime suggests it is worth their time trying to catch a prolific offender. Or if the crime is more severe than quotidian offences. But typically the crime number allows you to make your insurance claim, it gets logged in the police crime database, and that's all that happens. My evidence is the experience of myself, friends and family.
- k-mcgrady 12y agoWhy do they need to waste so many resources on him? Wouldn't it suffice to monitor the embassy with CCTV cameras on the street and have him flagged at the border if they see him leave?
- alex_hitchins 12y agoI wonder if it would be possible to prevent the staff entering the embassy? We can't enter it legally, but we surly could prevent people entering? I understand it would create a stink, but starving the man out must be something they have thought about.
- madaxe_again 12y agoInterfering with diplomatic staff is also illegal. I understand that everybody apparently wants to see Assange burn at the stake for being a sexual predator (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...), but that's not a justification for an act of war.
- alex_hitchins 12y ago> (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...) What evidence do you want/expect to see? Genuinely intrigued as so what burden of proof is deemed necessary in this situation.
- madaxe_again 12y agoThe burden of proof is always on the prosecutor - they have to prove you guilty, not the other way around.
- alex_hitchins 12y agoSorry, my point wasn't clear. What evidence would be needed for 'social consensus' to see this as a 'valid' trial and not some made up charge? Part of me thinks that if this was a made up charge to get him to the USA, they would want to ensure they had solid evidence to prosecute.
- rmc 12y agoHe's not being held. He has choosen to not face legal cases against, and is in hiding.
- madaxe_again 12y agoI wonder how many would argue that Assange should "face the music" while simultaneously arguing that Snowden shouldn't.
- alex_hitchins 12y agoTo my knowledge Snowden isn't wanted for questioning over an alleged rape... Edit : Why the downvotes? Edit 2 : Changed from "To my knowledge Snowden hasn't raped anyone..."
- madaxe_again 12y agoAnd to my knowledge neither has Assange. He has been accused of rape, which isn't the same thing as being found guilty of rape. I accuse you of being a pederast - therefore you should report yourself to the police? No? No. It doesn't work that way.
- corin_ 12y agoIt does work that way. If someone accused me of being a pederast/paedophile (acting not just medically) then I would very much expect the police to want to interview me, and either clear me of all wrong doing or prosecute if it was true. And that's how it should be. How else would anyone ever get convicted of a crime if they can just say "I'm not going near the police or a trial until I've already been proven guilty"?
- alex_hitchins 12y agoI've edited my comment however still feels it validates the point. The Snowden and Asange cases are not one and the same.
- matthewmacleod 12y agoWell, they both pretty obviously committed crimes - if the respective accusations are true. So it's difficult to see the difference between "accused of rape" and "accused of release of classified information".
- 12y ago
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoIt's a huge amount of money, sure. However, to claim that Assange is being 'detained without charge' is disingenuous to say the least. He is there completely of his own free will. I wish Sweden would just guarantee that he won't be extradited and we can get this all over with, but the changes of that happening now are remote - looks like a pretty permanent stalemate to me.
- alex_hitchins 12y agoAs much as I don't want to give in to his bullying tactics; I almost want Sweden to interview him in situ just to shut him up. Are there legal reasons this can't happen?
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoFrom [1]: "The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind. If a decision is taken to formally charge him, Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision being made. It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge. Even if he were interviewed in the embassy, if a decision was then taken to formally charge him, it is somewhat difficult to believe that Assange would suddenly renounce his claim to asylum in Ecuador." [1] https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london https://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-...
- alex_hitchins 12y agoVery interesting indeed. Thanks for the link.
- Jedd 12y agoInteresting insight, thank you. I wonder what the material difference is for Sweden between continuing to not question him, and to question him on site at the embassy is, given the end result would seem to be identical (viz. they don't get to formally charge him and force him to face trial within Sweden in either scenario).
- alex_hitchins 12y agoThere must be far greater waste going on that is more irksome/disgraceful than this. It's almost as if there was some sort of agenda behind it...
- mverwijs 12y agoThey've a typo right smack on the first part of their page: "The Seige of Julian Assange is ...." Trying to alert the owner of the site by following the 'contact' link, and I get an Undelivered (554) back from their mailservers. <admin@govwaste.co.uk>: host mx1.privateemail.com[192.64.116.221] said: 554 5.7.1 <admin@govwaste.co.uk>: Relay access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command) Very shoddy impression.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- sago 12y agoAt the bottom of the page "Where do these numbers come from?" explains the methodology.
- PJDK 12y agoEvery time this comes up a lot of people question whether Britain is making a special case out of Assange. But the European arrest warrant system has been around for a while, and been criticised for the burden it places on the police when dealing with minor crimes. There was a fuss sometime ago about Poles being extradited for chicken theft and the like. http://www.economist.com/node/15179470 http://www.economist.com/node/15179470
- singularity2001 12y agoSo how much money do the US+UK spend on propaganda against Assange? Honest question. Are there any estimates on the order of magnitude?
- PlzSnow 12y agoMy guess would be £0. Why would they need to? A very sizeable part of the population think he's a creepy nerd who's hiding from sexual assault allegations. The later is true, the former subjective.
- youngtaff 12y agoAssange is there of his own free will as he chose to go there rather than be extradited to Sweden. He chose to go through the legal process in the UK while it suited him and then when it didn't suit him he decided to seek asylum. I hope the UK Gov sends him the bill for wasting my tax money
- Tomte 12y agoI'd laugh my ass off if Assange came out of the embassy eventually, was extradited to Sweden, and after a short interview they'd let him go.